House of Commons - Women in scientific careers - Science and Technology Committee

Women in scientific careers - Science and Technology Committee Contents

4 Practicalities of an academic career

Early career instability

SHORT TERM CONTRACTS

40. Academic research funding is provided through the dual-support system where the four UK Higher Education Funding Councils provide core funding for infrastructure, including permanent staff costs, and the Research Councils award grants for specific research groups and projects.[193] Other funding sources for research include charities and the private sector. Following completion of a PhD, Post-Doctoral Researchers (PDRs, also referred to as "post-docs") are usually employed under a series of short-term contracts of one to five years before gaining a permanent academic contract.[194] A typical research group would be led by a Principal Investigator (PI) and a number of post-docs and PhD students who carry out research under the supervision of the PI. The PI, who is usually a permanent member of staff, applies for funding for specific projects (for example, research grants) and appoints post-docs to work on those projects.[195] Grant funding is usually tied to a particular PI at one institution under whom a post-doc may be employed on a fixed term basis. Alternatively, post-docs may obtain a research fellowship, where funds are awarded directly to an individual to pursue their choice of independent research, typically for up to 5 years.[196] Because fellowship funding is attached to an individual, the researcher (PI or post-doc) has greater choice over where to do their research.

41. The Society of Biology highlighted that short term contracts encouraged mobility between institutions both nationally and internationally to "expand training and skills development".[197] This was considered to be useful to the scientific community as movement of post-docs fostered collaboration between research groups on an international scale and "institutions recognise that collaborations borne from the movement of scientists invigorate science through discussion and the exchange of ideas".[198] Professor Uta Frith, Russell Group, explained that "short-term contracts are probably inevitable in a very competitive situation" and that they encouraged innovation.[199] She added that short term contracts were a way of ending research projects that had originally seemed "promising" but were not.[200] Short term contracts are beneficial to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), the employers of post-docs, according to a report by our predecessor committee, which found that:

201

For a typical post-doc, the period of employment under short term contracts occurs when they are 25-35 years old, meaning early academic careers are "relatively unstable in what is known to be a crucial period [...] for both men and women".[202] This instability can make it difficult to secure a mortgage and "inhibits continuity of employment rights".[203] The Society of Applied Microbiology considered that "this is discouraging for scientists who also wish to establish a stable home and family".[204] The STFC WiSTEM Network explained that the need to be geographically mobile "particularly during early career, is a major obstacle highlighted by women, especially when contrasted with the financial rewards and stability other careers with such demands can bring in the long term".[205] Bournemouth University highlighted that post-docs with a partner suffer additional difficulties; if the partner has a job outside academia they may not be geographically mobile and the "partner's non-academic career can often be prioritised, being more likely to provide a permanent rather than fixed term contract and therefore more stability".[206] If both partners are in academia they can suffer from the "two-body" problem where "if one member of an academic couple accepts a job in a distant location, it can be very difficult for the other to follow, without their career being negatively affected".[207] While this can affect both women and men, a 2010 survey showed that "42% of females had partners working in STEMM (compared to 29% of males)" making it a proportionally larger issue for women.[208] The Open University stated that in dual academic careers, "women are more likely to follow their male partners than the reverse" if there is a need to relocate.[209] Professor Dame Julia Higgins explained that "historically, it has usually been the woman's career that has given way to the man's career" and that although "it should not automatically be the woman who gives in [...] it nearly always is".[210] The situation is exacerbated by some research fellowships specifying that a post-doc must relocate to a different university or country: these tend to be from charity or industry funders, for example the Marie Curie and Wellcome Trust Fellowships in life sciences and AXA research fellowship.[211] For post-docs considering starting a family, the lack of a permanent position can impact on their entitlement to maternity leave.[212] Therefore the early stages of academia are where most women are lost in the "leaky pipeline" of science careers.[213]

42. The ScienceGrrl Campaign explained that many male and female scientists were unhappy with the system. For example, a male post-doc stated that he was "tired of the nomadic lifestyle which had prevented settling down" and added that "it's also played havoc with long-term financial stability with regards to pensions and house buying".[214] A female lecturer considered that had she not gained a permanent post she would have "left academia as I had reached the point where I could no longer deal with the uncertainty and moving around".[215] Dr Nicola Patron, a UK academic whose partner lives in Australia, stated that "my current contract is for two years and I expect that at least one more national or international move will be necessary".[216] Dr Patron explained that short term contracts were a problem for productivity as a significant proportion of time would be spent on securing the next contract.[217] In 2011, the Science is Vital Campaign produced the report Careering Out of Control: A Crisis in the UK Science Profession? which stated that "the constant cycling of new people through labs on short-term contracts is detrimental to productivity as expertise is lost and has to be constantly refreshed".[218] Prospect stated that "there are strong concerns related to funding for research and the short term nature of many contracts in research, even in fields where the research is more valuable when it is long term, such as climate science".[219]

43. Some research funders are moving towards offering longer term grants and fellowships, for example, Dr Leslie Thompson, Research Councils UK (RCUK), stated that "it has been a policy of [the EPSRC[220]] to move from less than 5 per cent of our grants being of three years or longer in duration to a third of the grants being of a longer duration".[221] Dr Thompson also stated that "institutions don't always use the flexibility they could have for managing their population of short-term researchers as creatively as they might do".[222]She considered that this was "because the responsibility is, more often than not, put on the shoulders of the individual research lecturer, not on the shoulders of the department or the institution as the employer".[223] The Women's Engineering Society suggested that "a clear career path should be devised for all universities which enables a route up the ladder without having to move from city to city or having to take fixed term contracts".[224] Dr Patron suggested that funding agencies should "offer competitive long-term fellowships (2-3 years) that do not require relocation but which do provide funding for short term travel to other labs (1-3 months) so that collaborative networks are still built".[225] Other suggestions included that research councils could "provide a greater number of long-term fellowships" or "offer new competitive Fellowship schemes specifically aimed at academics who have had to relocate in order to follow a partner".[226] The University of Oxford suggested that HEIs should provide post-docs "with a month free from lab work to write their next application; or bridging funding of three months [or] a part-time position to sustain their research career between external contracts".[227] Bridging funding was also recommended by others.[228] The Royal Academy of Engineering considered that as the Government "has a substantial influence over university culture through the funding provision it makes and the level of certainty of future funding levels", an "increase in the level of future funding certainty would help the HE sector to plan and underwrite more longer term contracts for staff".[229] The Cambridge Association for Women in Science and Engineering went further and suggested that "legislation could be introduced to limit the use of short term contracts".[230]

44. The Minister considered that "the life of a post-doctoral researcher is pretty tough" and that having "to move around on short-term contracts" might "be off-putting for some women".[231] When asked about short term contracts in research, the Minister explained "we have always got to get a balance between short and long term [contracts], but with things like Royal Society fellowships, which we support financially, there are opportunities to get work done on a much longer time scale".[232] The Minister stated that "the Vitae career development requirements are very good, in that they say that the PI—the organisation employing you on the contract—has an obligation to think about your long-term interests, advise you on what to do next and help you on that", which he noted had "been one of the big omissions in the past".[233]

45. Balancing the benefits of short term contracts with the needs of Post-Doctoral Researchers was examined by our predecessor committee in 2002. We are disappointed at the lack of progress in the last decade. The system of short term employment contracts for post-docs results in job insecurity and discontinuity of employment rights that is difficult for any researcher, but disproportionally deters women from continuing with science careers. It also has implications for workforce productivity.

46. We are pleased that some research funders are recognising the benefits of long term contracts to academic careers and encourage others to follow this example. We encourage Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to provide longer term posts for post-docs, recognising the benefit to scientific progress of continuing expertise.

47. We recommend that the Government should work with the Higher Education sector to review the academic career structure and increase the number of more stable and permanent post-doc positions.

48. International collaboration brings benefits to science but requiring researchers to relocate is not the only way to promote it. We suggest that research funders should remove from fellowship conditions any requirements for researchers to move institute or country and instead provide funding for shorter visits to other institutes for collaboration purposes. We recommend that research funders work with HEIs to create funding for permanent post-doc positions.

49. Wherever possible, HEIs should provide three months of bridging funding for post-docs, to allow them time to apply for new contracts.

Time away from research

50. Throughout their career a researcher's success is measured by their track record, which means securing grant funding for research and publishing their research as papers.[234] Achieving funding and having a good publication record are interlinked: a good publication record usually attracts funding.[235] However, assessing publication records by the number and impact of papers produced "militates against career breaks or reduced working hours".[236] For example, the h index, a commonly used measure, makes no allowance for time away from research or for part time working.[237] The Royal Academy of Engineering explained that:

238

NON-RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

51. Women researchers may be more likely than men to participate in non-research activities such as teaching and outreach. The British Medical Association stated that women "end up carrying out non-research roles [...] more often than men, reducing the time available for their research activities".[239] The London Mathematical Society explained that "surveys of women mathematicians show that many women feel that they are often asked to take on teaching and pastoral roles".[240] Promotion in STEM careers "is assessed by criteria such as research income and publication output, metrics that have been recently shown to discriminate against women".[241] Promotion criteria also "tend to under-emphasise other activities such as student-oriented roles, including pastoral care and teaching, and community-oriented roles such as departmental administration or outreach work".[242] The STFC WiSTEM Network stated that:

243

However, such activities are not formally recognised or rewarded in a systematic way across the HE sector. The British Medical Association considered that such activities which "impact adversely on research profiles and career progression, should be acknowledged and valued".[244] There was also a view that "the definition of excellence used is often too narrowly focused on specific research-related metrics".[245] The Royal Academy of Engineering recommended that "HEIs' promotions criteria should be examined to ensure that contributions across management, out-reach, knowledge transfer activity, teaching [and] research are equally and appropriately recognised".[246] The Physiological Society suggested that there should be "greater scrutiny to ensure that truly unbiased measures are used and supported".[247] The STFC WiSTEM Network stated that "quantitative measures of staff and job applicants' productivity such as number of papers published and h-index should be replaced with a comprehensive evaluation of the person's contribution to the organisation and the field".[248] For example, there should be "acknowledgement and credit for tasks such as organisation of group seminars, engagement with visiting school-children, mentoring junior colleagues, taking on placement students, acting as counsellors".[249]

THE RESEARCH EXCELLENCE FRAMEWORK (REF)

52. The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is the new system for assessing the quality of research in UK higher education institutions and will be completed in 2014.[250] The REF will be used by funding councils to assess HEIs for quality-related funding (block grants).[251] The REF does not measure non-research activities but is a measure of the quality of research at an institution.[252] Individuals are still measured by their publications and citations but the REF compensates for researchers who have taken a career break or are working part time (for example, fewer publications).[253] The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) manages the REF exercise on behalf of the four UK Higher Education funding bodies.[254] David Sweeney, Chief Executive of HEFCE, stated that the REF now required:

255

53. When asked about the measurement of non-research activities, Mr Sweeney stated that "nationally and internationally, [...] there is no appropriate robust measure of the quality of teaching".[256] In October 2013, the Minister stated that "one of the principal aims of this Government's higher education reforms has been to place students back at the heart of universities where they belong" which "means strengthening the incentives to focus on teaching".[257] He considered that:

258

The Royal Society of Chemistry suggested that "HEFCE reviews the REF process to check for any potential, unintended effects on the gender balance in STEM disciplines" as "procedures that may have unintended consequences are those that do not recognise collaborative ways of working, which women tend to prefer, and procedures that lead to (or reflect) particular individuals having a celebrity-like status within their community - the majority [of] whom are currently men".[259] Mr Sweeney confirmed that HEFCE:

260

The Minister hoped "that the impact measure [of the REF] will help ensure that some of the outreach and communication activity is properly valued for the first time" and that "we will put into the next grant letter [to HEFCE] very clear guidance on understanding diversity challenges [...] in its approach to the funding of universities".[261] We appreciate that funding from research councils and the REF must be based on scientific and research excellence and support the continuation of this principle. We are satisfied that HECFE takes seriously the issue of monitoring the gender impact of the REF.

54. We recommend that HEIs and heads of research groups should ensure that important non-research activities are recognised in performance appraisals and promotion boards.

MATERNITY

55. Although it varies by STEM discipline, the "average age for appointment to lecturer grade" is around 34 years.[262] Dr June McCombie told us that this is "when you are eligible for all of the allowances for maternity leave, for support when you come back".[263] This means that "women may have to make difficult decisions about when to settle down and start a family" because "having a child before a permanent appointment may mean losing a huge amount of time in the early career stages, but waiting until a permanent appointment may mean progressing to senior levels less quickly".[264] Dr Katherine Sloyan summarised the situation as "an unpleasant choice: risk not having children or risk having to restart my career in my mid-thirties".[265] There is legislation to protect women: the Equality Act 2010 prevents discrimination towards women due to pregnancy or maternity leave.[266] However, the Institute of Physics stated that there is "anecdotal evidence from many of our members in academia that maternity leave is often organised ad-hoc, poorly implemented at the departmental level and women are not properly informed of their entitlements".[267] There are some issues "surrounding funding when women leave on maternity and whether research can be paused or covered during their leave".[268] Bournemouth University explained that returning to work following maternity leave can also be "particularly challenging" as women must "catch up on research work after a year's absence" without "additional administrative support or reduction in teaching workload".[269] Cardiff University stated that there was also pressure on women to "come back as early as possible" in order for "individuals to retain the same teaching duties and administrative responsibilities, and also keep up their publication output or 'research productivity'".[270] For post-docs on short contracts, an additional problem may be "the contract status of women taking maternity leave: depending on the timing of the birth of a child they may be not be eligible for full maternity pay".[271] To qualify for Statutory Maternity Pay a woman must be in employment for 26 weeks before the end of the 15th week before the baby is due.[272] Katrine Rogers explained that as she was on a short-term contract, she was unable to return to her previous position after maternity leave, and was also "unable to benefit from contractual maternity pay".[273] The Equality Challenge Unit explained that:

274

Because the length of time required to achieve a permanent post coincides "with the time at which people are seeking to purchase houses and/or start a family", many women "leave academia, or never enter it in the first place, in favour of more stable careers".[275] The "lack of successful female role models with families" perpetuates the situation.[276] The STFC WiSTEM Network stated that some "women fear that a career in STEM cannot be reconciled with their (future) domestic life" although for some, "an academic STEM job often offers greater flexibility than a teaching job when it comes to raising a family".[277]

56. The Russell Group Equality Forum explained that "caring for family members is increasingly becoming an issue for men as well as women" and that "this should be recognised and men should be facilitated to play active roles as carers for both children and elders".[278] This would "serve to balance the responsibilities of caring between genders and a change in attitudes towards these issues, allowing for greater flexibility in careers".[279]Jenny Marsden, Principal Physicist, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, stated that promoting "child caring for both genders more equally, as in Sweden" was "changing the culture, so there is not the unconscious bias in employing women that they might go off and have children".[280] She added that "you employ someone between the ages of 20 and 40 and, whether they are male or female, they may have a career break".[281] It was suggested that:

a) Research funders should be "more flexible" and consider extensions of funding and time for maternity leave;[282]

b) Research funders and Principal Investigators "should be open to flexible working options", including "enable[ing] time and support for women when they need to start planning their next move":[283]

c) HEIs should "provide additional support to help scientists through the difficulties of running their research group while on maternity or paternity leave" including "providing funding for a post-doc to support the lab in their absence and making effective use of keeping-in-touch (KIT) days";[284]

d) Academics returning from maternity leave could be "offered a 6 month period, in which they are relieved of teaching duties so that they can focus on their research work";[285] and

e) The "learned or professional societies could consider free/flexible membership for people on parental leave [...] as a means of keeping up to date and in touch with your profession while on leave and potentially reducing the barriers to re-entry following a career break".[286]

57. Dr Thompson, RCUK, stated that:

287

The Children and Families Bill is currently progressing through the House of Lords.[288] Under the provisions of that Bill, working mothers and fathers will be able to share parental leave when a baby is born.[289]

58. There appears to be a lack of coordination and communication between research funders and HEIs which, exacerbated by the use of short term contracts, results in women falling into cracks in the funding system when maternity support is required. Research funders need to make their maternity provisions clearer to researchers and their employers.

59. We have recommended a review of the academic careers system which should examine how to better support women taking maternity leave and help them integrate back into the workplace. A move towards longer-term employment of academic researchers should encourage maternity provisions in line with other employment sectors.

60. We support the shared parental leave system being proposed by the Children and Families Bill, as shared parental leave is an important step towards creating equality for everyone in the workplace. However, simply introducing a new system will not in itself change workplace attitudes towards maternity, or the difficulties caused by taking parental leave. Academia will still need to address the real and perceived career damage which can be caused by taking parental leave.

BALANCING CAREER WITH FAMILY

61. Women are more likely than men to work part time.[290] The Institute for Physics and Engineering in Medicine stated that the main reason for flexible working is "balancing childcare responsibilities with the demands of a career in science" and considered that "there appears to be a dearth of opportunity for sufficiently flexible working patterns, or real commitment to 'family-friendly' policies".[291] Where flexibility or part-time working does exist, "there is a perception that career progression is more difficult, as quantity is valued and quality alone is not enough".[292] Under the Working Time Regulations, employers cannot normally expect adults to work in excess of 48 hours per week, averaged over 17 weeks.[293] As highlighted in the previous chapter, there is a perception that it is "impossible to work part-time in science and be successful".[294] There is "a long-hours culture in academia and [...] there may be little point in working part-time in a university, particularly if the reality is that full-time working means regularly working 60 hours per week".[295]The Society for Applied Microbiology explained that "measurement of success is usually by output, and what can be achieved in a normal working week is not seen as competitive for funding or career progression".[296] As a result, "researchers are regularly working six or seven days a week and clocking up hours far in excess of contractual obligations" and "this particularly impacts women early in their research careers when they may also be taking on additional responsibilities within the family context".[297] The Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) stated that there is a "frequent requirement in STEMM for individuals to be in a specific lab or the field at set times resulting in lack of opportunities for genuine flexible working".[298] The Royal Academy of Engineering explained that "local culture within the HEI management is probably the most significant factor in how flexible or otherwise a HE environment is in practice".[299] The ECU highlighted the importance of defining core working hours and stated that "women are more likely to take advantage of [...] appropriate core hours (e.g. 10:00 - 16:00)".[300] The ECU noted that some universities operate core hours that are "often not fully enforced or [...] flexible" which "means that staff can be excluded from meetings held later in the day, for example if they need to collect children from school".[301] An additional difficulty for primary carers is that caring responsibilities may not be compatible with "activities that are often viewed as essential for a successful academic career" such as "international travel for conferences".[302] Childcare is also "extremely expensive".[303]

62. All HEIs should review the working hours of their academic staff and the management of research groups to ensure that practices are in keeping with the needs of those employees with caring responsibilities. Such matters should not be devolved down to research groups. Line managers who pressure staff into working unreasonably long working hours should be held to account by their employer. In addition, every academic researcher should have a named contact within the HEI's human resources team to whom they can confidentially direct queries.

63. Scientific research cannot always take place within regular working hours. However, we recommend that research departments should determine and operate appropriate core working hours with flexibility outside of those core hours. This would ensure that most staff members are available for key meetings while ensuring that those with caring responsibilities are not disproportionately disadvantaged. Fellowships and academic positions should be advertised with the option of working part time unless there are insurmountable obstacles to such an arrangement.

CAREER BREAKS

64. The Daphne Jackson Trust explained that "parental leave (incl. maternity, paternity and adoption leave) is usually relatively short term, well planned and most employers have good regulations in place for managing returns" whereas "a break of more than 24 months (2 years), is often not planned".[304] It explained that:

305

A survey from the Institute of Physics showed that women were almost three times as likely to have taken a career break in the last five years as men (14.3% compared to 5%).[306] A research career break "can have a severe long-term effect [compared to] other professions" because it causes a "hiatus in [...] publication record" and can "negatively affect the annual performance on the grant and the ability to obtain new research grants".[307] Researchers may "lose their up-to-date knowledge of fast-changing research fields" even after only "short periods away from work".[308] Dr Nicola Patron stated that there was a "career scar" that "drags on from that break [...] as grants/fellowships not applied for while on leave translate to more years without funding and publications".[309] She added that she would "never chance taking a career break" as she did not think she would "ever be able to get back".[310]

65. Career breaks "require appropriate management, to reduce impact on research and avoid the attrition of talented individuals".[311] The Medical Schools Council and Dental Schools Council explained that this included "sufficient time planning the break", retaining links with "'Keep in Touch' days or email updates" and "funding for staff absence, to avoid overburdening colleagues and to assist the returner".[312] The Daphne Jackson Trust supports women and men wishing to return to a research career following a break of two or more years taken for family, caring or health reasons.[313] Fellowships are normally two years in length and based at universities and industrial laboratories in the UK where Fellows undertake a challenging research project and a retraining programme.[314] The Daphne Jackson Trust has "a 96% success rate in returning [its] Fellows to science, engineering or technology careers".[315] Over 90% of its Fellows are women returning to research following a career break to bring up children and the Trust has helped more than 220 women make a successful return to a research career since 1992.[316] Dr Gemma Sweeney, a Daphne Jackson Fellow, stated that "without this opportunity, it would have been highly unlikely I would have returned to a career in science" and added that "after such a long career break I would not be confident of applying for a position for which I am qualified".[317] The Trust explained that "seven out of ten [Daphne Jackson] fellows stay in research for at least 2 years after completing their fellowship".[318] It also explained that:

319

66. The Trust receives 43 per cent of its funding from the Research Councils.[320] In November 2013 the Government announced that it would provide "£40,000 to support the Daphne Jackson Trust to develop a new fellowship to support people returning to professional engineering jobs after a career break".[321] However, the Minister clarified that this funding was "for a study about how much more they can do on the whole question of someone returning to science after taking a career break" and "not specifically for a set number of fellowships".[322] There was significant support expressed for the work of the Daphne Jackson Trust during our inquiry.[323] A key way to increase the participation of women in STEM careers is to enable them to return following career breaks. We are pleased that the Government is providing financial support to the Daphne Jackson Trust so that it can develop a new fellowship in engineering. We encourage more HEIs to sponsor and host Daphne Jackson Fellows.

Careers advice and support

67. Dr Patron highlighted that "very few group leaders and PhD supervisors encourage [other] careers" and highlighted "a paper in the United States not so long ago which said that, even though only 30% of PhD graduates would have a career in academia, 80% think they are going to have a career in academia; and 95% had only been spoken to about careers in academia, so they are not preparing themselves for other careers".[324] Dr Jones stated that "employers out there simply do not understand in any detail what high-performing scientists are capable of doing" and suggested that "we need vastly improved careers advice to help those of us who have left the academic system to find new jobs".[325] Jenny Marsden stated that "the workplace has changed; you can have many careers during your working life, and that ought to be promoted as well. Studying science is one way to access lots of different things you could do, if it is properly sold".[326] She added that "we ought to have better connections with companies and people looking for top-quality science graduates and science PhD students" and indicated that companies could market themselves "by saying they offer good flexible working practice".[327] ScienceGrrl considered that "it is unrealistic to continue telling PhD students and post-docs that an academic track is the only successful way to use their STEM education and training" and that:

328

Dr Jones considered that "established academics tend to under-appreciate the deficiencies in the academic careers system [...] they managed to obtain permanent jobs and therefore assume that the system cannot be too bad".[329] Others "fail to recognise that support that was given to them that proved critical in them getting permanent positions".[330] The Institute of Physics explained that from a survey of their members "only 40% of all the PDRs reported that they felt that they were respected and well regarded in their department" and that "factors such as a lack of a comprehensive induction, poor appraisal, lack of mentoring and lack of impartial careers advice all contributed to this".[331] The Society for Applied Microbiology stated that "many senior professionals, including scientists, lack the skills and training to be effective managers of people", a problem that "should be addressed as a matter of great urgency".[332] The University of Oxford considered that "within many science disciplines, work is organised into large research groups, which are often described as having a 'sink or swim' culture, with few formal reporting or support mechanisms".[333] It stated that "the evidence is that the absence of such mechanisms is largely neutral for men, but has a significant negative effect for women, who place a higher value on structured support".[334]

68. Mr Sweeney stated that HEFCE provided "block-grant funding to universities, which is intended to provide a degree of stability for universities" and that HEFCE "expect[ed] universities to use that wisely in supporting their staff".[335] Mentoring, careers advice, work placements and regular feedback "all help from the earliest stages to develop women's confidence as a scientist".[336] The Minister stated that "the Vitae researcher development framework is supposed to provide a framework for career development, aimed not just at women".[337] He highlighted the importance of "proper access to career advice and proper guidance [...] not simply a hire-and-fire culture within a university or research institute".[338]

69. Careers advice is also a key element in encouraging children into STEM careers. Pier Logistics and Cardiff University stated that "there is strong evidence demonstrating that the provision of quality advice/guidance enabling students to make the right careers choices in STEM is pivotal".[339] They added that "the kinds of professional careers advice on offer to many of the UK's school-children is limited and fragmentary and increasingly exported to an online (more cost-effective) interface".[340] We have recently criticised the Government's changes to the provision of careers advice to students.[341] Careers advice and support for academic STEM researchers is important for both men and women, but a lack of it can affect women disproportionately. HEIs and learned societies should encourage mentoring, support networks and seminars at the research group level and monitor this practice. We note that such activities are encouraged by the Athena SWAN charter.

70. Authoritative and impartial careers advice on options outside academia should be available to all undergraduate and postgraduate students, as well as researchers.

Destinations of leavers

71. The discourse around women leaving STEM careers is often based on an assumption that to leave STEM is undesirable. However, as the Wellcome Trust highlighted, "pejorative descriptions of the exit from academia as a 'failure' or 'loss' from science are unhelpful" as "most of those who leave academia following completion of a PhD continue to use their scientific training in a way that benefits their career, their new employer and the economy".[342] The Cambridge Association for Women in Science and Engineering (Cambridge AWiSE) stated that:

343

UCL stated that "women leaving academia are drawn to various jobs and sectors" and explained that it was "common for women to go to jobs in industry" because they were "often more secure and better paid, especially at junior levels".[344] It added that "women from science also end up in professional support roles" such as "Human Resources, teaching, positions in the NHS, administrative roles and research support posts".[345] Cardiff University stated that women moving into "administrative roles within a higher education institution, into science teaching at secondary or further education level or into roles in business and commerce" were "likely to put their scientific training to positive effect".[346] Therefore "scientifically trained women who leave academia are unlikely to be lost to productive employment and indeed are likely to make important contributions to the educational, social, business and economic good of the country".[347] As the Minister put it, "one person's leakage from STEM may be another person's irrigation of the wider community".[348] Nevertheless, the under-representation of women in STEM academic careers is "exacerbated by every woman who takes the decision to leave" and "the unique contributions and perspectives these women could bring to academic science are lost".[349] Having fewer women attaining senior positions "perpetuates the lack of role models for younger women studying STEM subjects" and also "results in the culture remaining masculine so that a 'chilly climate' for women persists".[350] It also represents "a loss of skills and talent and a waste of national resource in an area which is predicted to underpin economic growth".[351]

72. Finding comprehensive data on the destinations of women who leave STEM careers was problematic. Data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) cannot be used to "analyse the destinations of staff leaving academia by gender".[352] Vitae's 2011 What Do Researchers Do? publication showed that:

353

Professor Dame Julia Higgins, Chair of the Royal Society's Diversity Programme, stated that the Royal Society was "trying to collect data on where people have gone to" because:

354

73. Exit interviews and/or questionnaires can be used by employers to determine the reasons why staff leave or where they intend to go. When we asked Professor Uta Frith, Russell Group, whether and how exit questionnaires were used by HEIs, she responded that she "[did] not know of any such efforts or attempts to do that".[355] Professor Jane Powell, 1994 Group, explained that "there are questionnaires that will be developed to some extent locally as part of an exit interview procedure, which is done more or less erratically; it is sometimes difficult to get people to sit down for such an interview".[356] She also outlined the difficulties of accurately determining the reasons why staff "moved on" as it could be a combination of reasons rather than just one.[357] Professor Powell highlighted that "there have been new fields added to the HESA staff record [...] which will provide more information on reasons for leaving and destinations".[358] This data will be available from March 2014.[359] Mr Sweeney stated that HEFCE does not "mandate behaviour in universities at that level, but that is the sort of good practice that we would encourage and support".[360] He added that "the responsible people are the employers, the universities [and HEFCE's] core task is to get them to take their responsibility seriously and to discharge it".[361] The Government clarified that "there is no single body tasked with pulling together all data on gender diversity in STEM".[362] However it highlighted that "the Royal Society is carrying out a study of the diversity of the STEM workforce" and "will outline a new categorisation of the STEM workforce".[363] The Royal Society's report "will be published early in 2014 and will help us to understand further where women, and other under-represented groups, go when they leave STEM education or careers".[364]

74. Identifying the reasons why staff choose to end their employment in an organisation is crucial to identifying and challenging where poor behaviours and practices may exist. We are disappointed that information on the reasons why women leave academic STEM careers is patchy and largely anecdotal.

75. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) should routinely conduct exit interviews and/or questionnaires with all researchers leaving their employment. Each HEI should publish this data in a suitably anonymised form so that organisations working to improve diversity in STEM can make use of it. Organisations such as the WISE Campaign, Equality Challenge Unit and national academies should advise HEIs on the best way to gather and publish this data in a consistent manner.

193 The four funding councils are the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW), the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) and the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland. Back

194 WSC 44 [Imperial College London] para 7 Back

195 WSC 90[ STFC WiSTEM Network] para 11.13 Back

196 WSC 88 [Queens' University Belfast] para 20 Back

197 WSC 74 [Society of Biology] para 8 Back

198 WSC 21 [Dr Nicola Patron] para 2 Back

199 Q 100 Back

200 Q 100 Back

201 Science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2001-02, Short-term research contracts in science and engineering, HC 1046, para 14; for Government response see Science and Technology Committee, Fourth Special Report of Session 2002-03, Short term research contracts in science and engineering Government response to the committee's Eighth Report of Session 2001-02, HC 442 Back

202 WSC 44 [Imperial College London] para 7 Back

203 WSC 65 [Sean McWhinnie, Oxford Research and Policy, and Jan Peters, Katalytik] para 22; WSC 64 [Medical and Dental Schools Council] para 4.3.3 Back

204 WSC 68 [Society for Applied Microbiology] Back